[ad_1]
The key finding of the study, however, was not that more people had allergies; that was already an accepted observation. Who had them and who didn’t. The author, immunologist David Strachan, reported that people in their early twenties, who had been part of a huge lifelong study of British children born in 1958, did not appear to have a fever if they grew up with older siblings. The conclusion was that the older siblings — who would leave the house, go to school, and run away with friends when the children stayed at home — explained to the young children something they had brought home. It was a phenomenon that was not available to the elderly or single child, people with a higher rate of herbal fever than younger siblings in this original study.
Possibility of early exposure something the post-obstruction problems were intuitively appealing, and led to a leap in research linking allergies, eczema, and asthma to modern hygienic life. Many observational studies reported that allergies and asthma were lower in people who had childhood outside cities, which were entered day care with those who were in childhood or raised pets or were raised on farms– In general, he came to the conclusion that premature modern life was healthier for a growing confused and dirty child.
This caused a reaction, a feeling that the parents were desperate to avoid allergies neglect basic cleanliness — and a remodeling hygiene problem. Version 2.0, formulated by Rook 2003an, proposes that the source of allergies is not the absence of infection, but the removal of contact with environmental organisms that have accompanied our evolution for thousands of years. Rook called the hypothesis “longtime friends,” and suggested that being exposed to these organisms allowed our immune systems to learn the difference between pathogens and non-offensive travelers.
While this rethinking was taking place, laboratory science was making films of bacteria and fungi that occupy the microbiome, the outer and inner surfaces of the whole world, including us. This helped to reshape the exposures that children received in these observational studies — to animals, other children, feces, dry matter, and dust — not as a contagious threat, but as an opportunity to supply their microbiome with numerous organisms.
And that recognition led to version 3.0, as the hygiene hypothesis is now. The “disappearing microbiota” hypothesis has changed its name reformulated This iteration by microbiologist Stanley Falkow (who died in 2018) and medical researcher Martin J. Blaser 10 years ago suggests that our microbiome should mediate our immune system. He also warned that our microbial diversity is depleting and therefore less protected due to the impact of antibiotics, antiseptics and poor diet, among other threats.
This is due to the lack of exposure to childhood infections, bacteria in the environment, and other options for charging for the diversity of microbes – the immune system is out of balance with the environment. It is an idea that is now widely accepted in pediatrics and immunology, even if living advocates of different versions disagree with the details. But what does it mean for our immune systems when we get out of dealing with Covid-19? The hypothesis cannot say exactly what will happen, as so far researchers have data on the prevalence of viral infections, not on other types of exposure. But that data is provocative.
In the southern hemisphere, where the flu season overlaps in the summer of the northern hemisphere, there was “almost no flu circulation” in 2020, according to a CDC report in September. The agency has not yet published the latest report on the US experience with the flu this winter, but the World Health Organization reported last month it was kept “below the baseline” throughout the northern hemisphere.
[ad_2]
Source link
